“When the applicant, Lamin Dukuray, arrived with his father at the registration centre, I came to the conclusion that he has not attained the age of 18 and he will not be 18 years old on the day of the election. This is why I objected to his registration. Secondly, the Alkalo has confirmed that he does not know the applicant and his father, although he attested for his registration,” Mr. Suwaneh told the Revising Court.
Under cross-examination, Counsel Farag asked the objector why he did not sue the Alkalo for his fraudulent attestation but proceeded to challenge the registration of the applicant. In response, Mr. Suwaneh said that he was going to sue the Alkalo to court.
“Do you know that when the IEC officials receive an attestation from an applicant they issue him with a voter’s card?” asked Counsel Farag.
“I know that but it is the Alkalo himself who said that he does not know the applicant and his father, yet he attested for him. The applicant is less than 18 years and he will not be 18 on the day of the election if you observe him properly,” Mr. Suwaneh answered.
“What evidence do you have to show that the applicant is less than 18 years and he will not be 18 on the day of the election? Did you go through the attestation?” Counsel Farag wanted to know.
“No. The applicant was too young to be given an attestation, which was fraudulent. I am going to sue the Alkalo for that,” said the objector.
